Dan Abel wrote:
> In article >, "Jean B." >
> wrote:
>
>
>> You can start he
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio
>>
>> Note the "More Evidence" part. You are really behind the times.
>
> Frankly, I'd rather be behind the times. When I read this "new" stuff,
> sometimes it seems like I can't even finish the article before somebody
> comes up with something new that supersedes it. So, I just don't pay a
> lot of attention. And after a few months, they're back to the old story
> again.
>
> So, I read the article above:
>
> "suggests a reason why: investigators may have picked the wrong culprit"
>
> "But saturated fats may ultimately be neutral compared with processed
> carbs and sugars"
>
> Not confidence builders. Where does it say that the previous data about
> saturated fats is wrong? It doesn't, that I saw. It just says that
> maybe, some other things are worse. Well, we need to watch ALL the bad
> things, not just pick one.
>
> Reminds me of the flap about sugar many years ago. It was just EVIL.
> It was the cause of all the problems of the world. I'd read about
> people eating a "healthy breakfast". Three eggs fried in butter, three
> pieces of bacon, three slices of toast slathered with butter and three
> cups of coffee with generous amounts of cream. Why was that healthy?
> Note that there was no jam on the toast, nor sugar in the coffee. Those
> had been eliminated, so now it was a "healthy breakfast". How did that
> happen? One explanation was that advice had been given to "eliminate
> sweets". So, people ate whatever they wanted, but cut out insignificant
> amounts of sugar so they would have "healthy diets". But what kind of
> "sweets" were really being advised against? Ice cream and pie, foods
> high in saturated fats, and thus calories! The word "sweets" may not
> have been intended to apply to sugar at all! If you were looking to cut
> something out of your diet, mostly to control your weight, cut out the
> dessert, not the vegetables. Pretty simple.
>
> So, I read the article. As others have commented, it's not a study.
> It's not an article about a study. It's a popular science article about
> a scientific review of some literature.
>
Yes, but you can then look into that study if you choose to.

BUT you have a very good point. All of the to-ing and fro-ing
makes one kind-of want to say to hell with all of this research,
since tomorrow it may be repudiated.

--
Jean B.